*. Attachment to Independent Case Review Report For CDRU # 1210 Case file #.95A-HO-1027167.

Material Examiner Malone (RQ)

Remarks: 2 ! fi

e Rit Sores

E REVIEW REPORT © Independent Review conducted by: - Steve Robertson , {

Axea(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 1:00PM (Time), - 09/15/99 — (ate)

File#: 95-1027167

Laboratory #(s): 20504028

— SS

, Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed Not Reviewed ‘ ‘Reviewed Not Reviewed xX 8° es , o

Bx. = a) 4 o

o . : - oa Materials Reviewed ,

Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Testimony Date(s): . ‘ Pages:

Laboratory Report(s):

* Laboratory Number:, 20504028 - Date: Mar 23, 1993 :

Laboratory Number: : cs Date:

Laboratory. Number: “Date: ;

' i r oe

‘ Examiner Bench Notes of: - RQ and unknown technician

Laboratory Number: ” 20504028

Was.any.other material reviewed? X Yes

"If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: Submitting agency lettet dated May 1,1 992

Results of Review

File # © 95-1027167 : Item or Specimen# Reviewed: QI; K2 .

. Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

‘Note: Numbered contments are required below or on additional pages, for any "No" or Unable to Determine" Responses

Did the examiner pérform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods, protocols, and oe techniques available at t! ee of-the original examination(s)? : oO Yes a Unatle to Pereniine

Are the examination results set forth i in the laboratory i As) spared and biecasely documented in the bench. notes? - ; G Yes: YNo 0 Unable to Determine:

Review of Testimony:

Noté: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any "No" or "Unable to Determine" Responses

ws ‘yanscript not available, 3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? ‘OYes ONG +o Unablé to Determine 4) Testimony consistent with-the bench notes? Yes ONo Unable to Determiie

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? ery Yes ONo Unable to Determine

. Comments (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. © Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, ifneeded) .

- File #, - 95-1027167.- .

#1. The examiner chose to perform solubility tests on the K fibers. Infrared analysis was available at this time and is a.much more specific analysis and allows'for the determination of the polymer sub-class of a synthetic fiber. Infrared analysis should have been performed on beige and gray K and Q fibers. . B ade __ #2, The results are not adequately documented in the notes. The notes are not dated and are in pencil. The / technician did not initial the notes. The spectra for thé beige ‘known fiber i is marked ai " and should be ; "Ka", The hair was deemed" unsuitable for comparison with no documented reason or explanation.

Review completed at: 1:30PM ; (Time), : 094 15 /99

* Total time spent conducting review ‘to ne nearest 1/4 f V } hour): : : (2- Aewsr™

Thereby certify that I conducted this review in an indépendent, unbiased manner and that the results of: Emy review are fully Socuntented 0 on this report Sonate of a total of __ pages. 4

(Signature)